What makes YOU a positive trainer?

Despite my one slip from grace using the prong on Thor, I think I qualify!

And, this is a harder question to answer than it would appear to be.

I am basically a gentle person who does not like a lot of noise and chaos.  I don't like having to raise my voice to be heard, I don't like yelling when something doesn't happen the way I expect it to happen, and I don't like using physical force.  Now, maybe a lot of this comes from my upbringing....Dad was always the disciplinarian and that was in the "spare the rod, spoil the child" days.  And then I married a loud mouthed blowhard who was mentally, emotionally and finally physically abusive.  For years my oldest son was afraid if anyone raised their voice even in a fun conversation.  So I saw what the noise, the yelling and the threat of physical force did to my kids and maybe that's why I am so opposed to getting physical with my dogs.  And I learned very early on with an ADHD child that CALM and CONSISTENT was the only thing that worked. That, and managing his environment. 

Once I was on my own and able to become the person I truly am, to find my own path, I learned that slow and steady always wins the race and I'm guessing that's where my feelings on training my dogs comes from.  I teach my dogs the same way that I taught my kids.  I can't say that I used to use force or this or that, because I never did...never could even bring myself to rub a pups nose in a mistake when that was THE way to housetrain....and that I find my way BETTER, because I honestly have never used another way.  Even using a prong on Thor, after he'd given me road rash on my fanny was an agonizing decision for me.  And I used it with the utmost care and caution and ONLY after having a trainer show me how to use it.

So, I use positive reinforcement, positive methods, because that's what fits best the person I am, and because it WORKS for me and it works for my dogs.  I can take BIG dogs just about anyplace and have them behave nicely in a social situation, and that's really all I care about.  Five have their CGC's, but that isn't a huge big deal with me.  That they will behave nicely in any situation is.  And they will.  I'm not a big strong woman who HAS a lot of physical force to use if I needed to, so it suits me just fine to train my dogs in a manner that fits who I am physically, mentally and emotionally.

Owning Ben is a privilege.  While I have the "right" under the law to own a dog, having a relationship with a dog who is a character, a personality unto himself, a being with feelings, likes and dislikes, things that bring him obvious joy and things that make him sad or scared or angry....that is a privilege, and so I would rather that the relationship be a cooperative one.  The majority of the time that means Ben is cooperating with me and what I want, and not the other way around, but there is still a lot of give and take in our relationship.  If we're out hiking and Ben wants to go in a particular direction, he can "win" that if it makes no difference to me. 

The important point for me is to separate in my head and in my actions Ben's behavior from Ben's personality.  I need to alter the first so that he is the dog I want him to be....but within his personality, he is ALREADY the dog I want him to be.  Positive training allows me to tailor Ben's behavior to suit my lifestyle, my needs, to teach him to do things that are fun for us both, like agility, without altering the core of who he is.  He would, I know, be less responsive to more "traditional" methods and so if I were to use those I'd have to be very forceful about it, which would change him, perhaps irrevocably. 

I guess I do not feel I have the right to "dominate" any creature that chooses to be with me as much as I choose to be with him. 

At this very moment, he is curled up by my feet - he chooses to be there, when he could be laying on his comfy bed across the room.  It's my job to lead, guide and shape him for his benefit and for his safety, but it is ALSO my job to let him be who he is.  With positive training Ben learns that changing his behavior, or performing a new one, means ONLY GOOD things happen to him, which allows his personality to stay the happy-go-lucky chap he is.  More forceful methods would mean, for Ben, that changing his behavior, or not doing so, is associated with fear, or pain, or negativity, or sensing anger from me...and no one, not even a dog and especially not my dog, would remain happy and social and friendly if he had to live with that.

I've maintained all along that my biggest influence in training Ben has been Ben himself.  He's a happy and positive dog.  If I build training around the dog he is, then we have no way to go but forward.   

A few posts makes a derailment?

The purpose of that other thread was not to talk strictly about ourselves, and it was fully intended to be a thread for civil debate and exploration. To get us all thinking.  Personally, I learn a lot when participating in that kind of back and forth.

I won't cause a nuisance in this thread.  But on the level of principle, I find it distasteful to have an "exclusive" thread in an open forum. I found it distasteful to have a protected forum for he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned, and I find it distasteful to have a protected thread here.

/editorial 

For the record, I am a positive trainer through and through and I have used a prong, with no regrets.  I fully believe that prong collars have a place in positive training. 

I use positive training methods because I value cooperation over compulsion, and compulsion over chaos.  Nothing positive about chaos! I have relationships with my pets, and I like my relationships to be mutually enjoyable. I want my dogs (and cats) to feel good about me, and when they are with me.  *I* feel good when we work together.  I'm like this with people, too.  

Whether with dogs or people, my ideal situation is when  we can find mutually agreeable solutions. With people, they are involved in the solution generating process.  Dogs can't really do that, so I have to guess on their behalf.  I am not a my way or the highway gal. There are times I have to assume that position, for the safety and well being of others, but that is not a first resort.

If I'm going to put a fine point on it (which I don't always, just for expediency's sake) I'd say my training philosophy is LIMA: Least invasive, minimally aversive. People with similar training philosophies often get labeled "extremist" but I see nothing extreme about making an attempt to minimize conflict with your dog and minimize the role that aversives play in the training relationship to the greatest extent that is possible while still keeping everyone safe. It seems pretty practical.  I have a goal, and while I do not always attain it, it is something I strive for. And I fully realize that when I fail to live up to my goal, it is my doing, not the dogs'. I don't beat myself up for it, but I'm an idealist and when I do something I try my best to identify what my ideal state would be and work hard to get as close to it as I can while still remaining human and fallible.

I'm a fairly recent convert to a LIMA strategy. I was a total dog idiot in a number of ways for a number of years, through our first dog Ananda who died because of my dog-idiocy, and through Conrad's first three years with us. I made the switch about 2 years ago, and because I'm just like this, when I decided to change I change everything. I don't do things by baby steps, I jump in with both feet. I read everything there is to read and I try everything there is to try. And when I was in the process of jumping in, everything I was reading and doing and experiencing just made so much sense, everything kind of fell in to place for me. My relationship with my dogs previously had seemed so incongruous. I'm a gentle person, a vegetarian for ethical reasons, my Buddhist initiation name means "Compassion Source", given to me by my teacher. Yet my relationship with Conrad had been so much about conflict and force and not being at all compassionate and understanding of his needs and his problems. I was very traditional. The word "dinosaur" comes to mind. I just want to stress that I am not at all implying that other people who don't consider themselves "positive trainers" do some of the things that I was doing--anyone who knows anything about dogs, regardless of training philosophy, would have been able to ID me immediately as a moron. It's just a miracle I didn't completely ruin my first two dogs. I think I came pretty close to ruining Conrad and we've been paying the price for that ever since and I feel very obligated to try and make it up to him.

Aside from the scientific evidence, and the evidence in my own house of how my dogs behave, I am a LIMA trainer because it is just who I am, and finally my relationship with my dogs fits in with the rest of the way I operate instead of sticking out like a sore thumb and being this source of internal conflict and disharmony. 
 

Dog_ma

A few posts makes a derailment?

The purpose of that other thread was not to talk strictly about ourselves, and it was fully intended to be a thread for civil debate and exploration. To get us all thinking.  Personally, I learn a lot when participating in that kind of back and forth.

I won't cause a nuisance in this thread.  But on the level of principle, I find it distasteful to have an "exclusive" thread in an open forum. I found it distasteful to have a protected forum for he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned, and I find it distasteful to have a protected thread here.

/editorial 

For the record, I am a positive trainer through and through and I have used a prong, with no regrets.  I fully believe that prong collars have a place in positive training. 

I use positive training methods because I value cooperation over compulsion, and compulsion over chaos.  Nothing positive about chaos! I have relationships with my pets, and I like my relationships to be mutually enjoyable. I want my dogs (and cats) to feel good about me, and when they are with me.  *I* feel good when we work together.  I'm like this with people, too.  

Whether with dogs or people, my ideal situation is when  we can find mutually agreeable solutions. With people, they are involved in the solution generating process.  Dogs can't really do that, so I have to guess on their behalf.  I am not a my way or the highway gal. There are times I have to assume that position, for the safety and well being of others, but that is not a first resort.

Well, maybe not exactly a derailment.  But, I thought it was headed in the direction that so many of those threads go (guess I was right, since I did get a PM from someone about "trainers like you", meaning me).  I suppose I just wanted to get at the reason why people choose positive training, and not so much into how other people see them.  My goal was a thread on how they see themselves.  And, I think it's so interesting that people are talking about their own experiences and principles with regard to life in general. 
 

I personally use positive training only. I would much rather my dogs do something because they want to rather then are afraid not to. I think with positive reinforcement training it also creates a much deeper bond between you and your dog, and an overall happier dog and owner.

If your boss called you to his office daily and gave you the offer of coffee and a donut every morning you wouldn't mind walking in. If he called you in to yell at you and threaten you; you would still go because you have no choice, but I bet you wouldn't want to go.

Just a little request......can we NOT fuss and quarrel in a thread where I spilled my guts please?  Gosh, answering that question required some introspection!  Not sumpthin I usually do on the weekends.......

Hmmmm....

I can't say that I'm completely positive.  But I can say that I've derailed from the balanced mode and the dominance theory.  Why?  I have a special needs dog.  That's right, a hound is a special needs dog.  Every hound is such.  Stubborn, independent, intelligent and (here's the kicker) soft.  That's right, a dog that cannot and will not tolerate harsh correction.  Xerxes is a dog that will shut down rather than comply.  He'd much rather roll on his back and submit than comply to a command he finds unfair, unjust and unwise-given the situation.  

 I think that the relationship I have with my dog is quite special because it requires me to trust him and him to trust me.  That trust is not taken lightly.  It is highly prized and comes at the price of me sacrificing my idea of superiority.  (This doesn't mean that I am lenient!) I am firm, fair and understanding.  I worked my butt off for the first 10 months I had him, establishing boundaries, training behaviors, reinforcing behaviors, and allowing him to use his mind to solve problems and work things out.  When I see him running on an open field, or see the look on his little thinking head when he solves a puzzle, or when I see him on a scent trail it all makes sense to me.

I trust him to follow, trail, track, mark or whatever he wants as long as he obeys the requests I give him from time to time on walks.  He trusts that I won't correct him unless it's deserved and that I'll allow him to make some decisions.  I trust him to follow the rules and boundaries that we've set.  No worries, no headaches, no punishments.
 

I haven’t always used positive training methods. I was a “yank & crank” person, up until the moment that I took in Bevo. The moment that my boss saw Bevo for the first time, he wrote a phone number on a piece of paper & handed it to me. The number was to a veterinary behaviorist at Texas A&M University. His exact words were “Call her now. That puppy is going to need much more work than you will be able to give him without guidance.”

When we went in for our consultation with the behaviorist, her first words were “you have your work cut out for you.” Bevo was under socialized, extremely nervous, & would snap at you when you tried to handle him. She recommended a clicker trainer, & even though I had doubts clicker training, I decided to go in with an open mind.  I am so glad that I did.

I was amazed that after two weeks of clicker training, my timid, high strung dog was showing signs of confidence. After six weeks, I had a “new” dog. He had transformed into a confident, "balanced" dog before my very eyes.

I use positive training methods because, I like that my dogs are allowed to think for themselves.  I love to see my dogs work things out on their own, & clicker training allows them to do so.  They have complete trust in me, & I have complete trust in them.  I have not had this kind of trust in my non-clickered dogs.  I can't think of a single reason that I would ever go back.

 I would say my reasons for being a positive trainer are a little of what everyone before me has said.

Like Glenda, I am a gentle person. I loathe conflict. I hate when people raise their voices. Arguments make me feel harassed. Even hearing the couple downstairs arguing thoroughly destroys my sense of peace and seems to go right through all my personal walls to my heart. It makes me anxious. Getting angry at other people makes me unhappy and anxious, even though it always gets me what I want (I'm a scary person when I'm angry). I always try for positive methods first because that's what I'd want my owner to do if I were a dog. That's all I've got to go on.

I think Cressida's LIMA method is exactly what I was taught when I started working on wild animals. As a research assistant working on small, delicate birds in a long-term project, it was imperative to always stop and assess what your actions around the birds might do to them. Just by sitting on the territory you could cause starvation of baby birds. If anyone has accidentally killed a charming little bird, you would know how bad you feel. I have personally broken one bird egg and witnessed the death of several birds and all would have been fine if I hadn't stepped in to study them. When you're there to learn about the birds, you feel pretty rotten when you start causing deaths. I got into the habit during my research assistant years of always considering how my actions might affect the animals and how I could minimise the negative impacts we had on them.

Lastly, of course, was Kit. As I've said many times before, you can't mess around with him. He doesn't need me and he knows he doesn't, so if I abuse his trust in me, there's nothing stopping him from withdrawing it completely and refusing to have anything to do with me. He's also mighty sensitive and stupidly easy to frighten. I went to massive lengths to gain his trust and was profoundly shocked when it resulted in a wild animal that liked me, understood me, and invented tailor-made methods of communicating with me. I was just trying to make him manageable. I never in my wildest dreams would have thought we'd be able to understand one another. It made me think, if he can do all that with a bit of kindness and care, imagine what a domestic dog could do?? Hares are nowhere near as smart or as trainable or as human-oriented as a dog. They're solitary, flighty, and Kit has never been very tame. In short, if I can make a dear, trusting friend out of a wild hare with a LIMA approach, then just imagine what I could make out of a dog with the same approach. It's very exciting. And I realised I'd taken for granted the fact that my dog naturally wanted me to be pleased with her hadn't appreciated that she was an individual that might not always like what I expect of her. That's where I've gone wrong with her.

My next puppy (only 6 months away!) will be trained with as little force and as little aversion and as little physicality as I can manage. I want a dog that knows I will trust and listen to them, one that will be confident that they can make their own choices. My hare often doesn't feel like even letting me touch him, but that's part of what I love about him. He knows I won't touch him if he doesn't want me to, and that means sometimes he wants me to touch him, and that's quite special. 

Even though I've been around dogs in my life, such as my grandparents having a Black Standard Poodle and a champion Apricot Poodle sire (retired), they were either already trained or just naturally lumps of marshmallow. When I got Shadow, I knew nothing. And when I was raised, you house-trained dogs by rubbing their nose in their mess. And every dog started out with the same name, downdangit.

So, when I got Shadow and realized that he was more Sibe than Lab, I started reading Sibe sites and they were a mixture of treat training for obedience and physically controlling corrections for disobedience and that mile-wide independence streak. I mean grab the scruff and lock eyes. And that didn't always work. It would stop the behavior at the instant, because I was maintaining a physical hold. But it did not change some behavior permanently. Other times, I could tell he thought it was play, because he plays hard and one of his original owners would play hard with him.

But I used to defend the ever-present possibility to use corrections. And I use to think the clicker was not going to work for us and I couldn't really see the need for it. My dog knows "good boy", right? And that success could be a sign of doing something right, in spite of the fact that I have encountered people in person that obviously have more money than sense.

But a few things changed my notion by at least getting me to think about the alternatives. Chuffy had once pointed out that dogs have a tendency to escalate a behavior that is rewarding. Counter-surfing and garbage raiding are good examples. So is an extinction burst, where a behavior was previously rewarding and, in spite of not getting recent rewards from it, a dog might escalate briefly, thinking more and harder is better. And why not use that ability to have the dog train himself?

In addition, people such as the OP, were constantly talking about the clicker and seeking the +R method first, before applying punishments. Constantly challenging me. Which eventually got through my thick hide and granite skull.

So I decided to try the clicker. It cost a back breaking sum of $4. Some clicker sites and one book cost about $15 (I think). And the difference between lure/reward and corrections and clicker training was like night and day. Once I got past my own idea of "balanced" and learned what balance is all about, I could truly analyze why something does or does not work. Balance is not, imo, about being equally able to administer correction or reward, it is about true communication between me and my dog. And nothing does that better than that one little sound. And its effects are far reaching, from the immediate establishment of a new behavior to a general building of trust.

Maybe I'm just lazy but I find marked reward training easier than punishments (in the behavioral psych sense) to make effective. For a punishment to be effective, it must be immediate, scaled to just the right intensity and have the end effect of stopping the behavior permanently. Otherwise, it becomes a minor or major irritation or it becomes attention, which is rewarding. The dog has to connect the punishment with the action or behavior, the last final step and we have no control over that. It is due to that particular dog's abillity to connect those two dots. With a marked reward for the right behavior, it's as loud as a click, or a flash of light or whatever the marker is. One of the side effects is that a number of unwanted behaviors have a chance of extinguishing, either through the command of incompatible behaviors or they will nearly extinguish on their own because the rewards I provide make those other rewards pale.

I use it because it works. And it works, not because I use it and must always be right, but because the scientific principles behind it are valid and easily demonstrated each and every time I watch a dog interact with the world. I'm not saying that clicker is for everything as there are some obediences that are better trained without the clicker, such as an extended stay. But the use of it provides a ready-when-I-am laboratory demonstration in the process of operant conditioning.

And I continue to use and support its use for others because I think it is the right way. Not that punishments are wrong or never happen. Not because I like or dislike a particular celebrity or even whether I have agreements or disagreements with any particular person here. To me, there is simply what is.

Positive training isn't just about using a clicker.

spiritdogs

I started this thread for positive trainers only to say why they are using these methods.

Well, I have been classified as a positive trainer by positive trainers on this board, although I don't label myself as such, simply because I'm not sure it means the same thing to everyone. I am very positive when dealing with my dogs. And I don't believe ANYONE deals with their dogs in an exclusively positive way. If your dog knows what "no" means, then you're not "positive only". In fact, I don't think there's such a thing. I almost always go positive first. That's why I think I would be considered positive by most.

The reason I do this is because it's my nature. It just seems natural to me to ask something of my dog and expect to get it. My dogs are generally so eager to please that if they know what I want, they'll give it. If they know what I want and don't give it, it's because they want something else more. My response depends on how badly I want it. If it's not important to me, then I ignore it. If it's important, that's when I feel I need to find a way to elicit the behavior. And usually that's positive, too. I just think about it a different way.

The classic case is calling the dog and he doesn't come, so instead of calling again, I turn around and run (or walk) the other way or do something different that's going to be inviting for the dog. Usually a game of some sort.

spiritdogs

But, please, leave this thread for people to say why they went with clicker or positive methods.

So, are you using "clicker" and "positive" as synonyms here?  Because if that's the case, I disagree. People can use a clicker and still punish their dogs.

I don't think that's at all what is being said, Carla.  Some folks really LOVE using clickers.  Myself, I use marker words instead because I'm clumsy and find it too difficult to "walk and chew gum" at the same time.  Plus, I've lost at least 4 of the darned things.

I have used less than positive methods.  I resorted to a prong with Thor after being literally dragged down the street on my butt.  But, the key is that I subsequently learned a BETTER way to train so that I didn't get myself in a situation where I felt the NEED to use an adversive.  And yes, I DID start with softer, gentler ways, but that boy is soooooo strong....well, that's history now, and I honestly doubt that I'll ever have a need to use a prong again, cuz I learned an EASIER way to train leash walking.

Just as an aside......I don't use the word NO with my dogs.  I save that for true emergencies.  And I will say, that screaming NO when the drag line was wrapping itself around my ankle and biting into my flesh likely saved my foot. The doc said if it had cut ANY deeper they would have likely had to take my foot.  So, honestly, for me, that reinforced 'saving' that word!